Pleasant@Rutgers (12/30/82)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 31 Dec 1982 Volume 5 : Issue 112
Today's Topics:
Computers and People - WorldNet (3 msgs) &
Productivity of Word-Processors,
Technology - Looming Technology (5 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sunday, 28 November 1982, 19:53-EST
From: Vinayak Wallace <Gumby at MIT-OZ>
Subject: The changing face of Micro-computing...
From: William "Chops" Westfield
Subject: The changing face of Micro-computing...
Microcomputing is changing. Is it getting better or worse ?
Yes.
Used to be, no two systems were alike. If you wanted to sell
software, it had to be configurable for just about anything.
And the people who bought it would have to know how to configure
it.
That answer was not facetious. The future will bring both good and
bad results of this trend. What you will make of it (on the overall)
depends on your background and orientation.
We (meaning the CPM hackers who've used it for more than a year
(that's all!)), are indeed hackers -- we know the system to a
greater detail than most (> 90%) of the microcomputer users out
there. We've grown up with them, and are used to thinking of them as
toys which need great amounts of care and attention. Modifying the
source code is not a problem -- in fact, to us, it's a feature. We
get just what we want. After a while, we hardly count the minutes
it takes to compile a version with the equates set correctly.
Just doing that (running an assembler) is beyond not just the skill
but the interest of this "normal" microcomputer user. He's been sold
a tool by a salesman, and he wants to use it, not customize it. In
essence, he wants a pinto or a civic, NOT an xj7 or low-rider.
Nowadays, things are a lot different. You can pick one of
(apple, radio shack, IBM, osbourne), write software for it that
won't run on anything else, and if it's any good, you become
rich. How will this change the way people compute ?
We're different. Ok. That doesn't mean we're bad, does it? Well, to
a normal computer salesman, it does. We'd rather spend $50 on a bare
board video card than 1200 on an IBM terminal. Obviously, his profit
on us is lower. Especially when there are more terminal customers
then there are hackers.
For example, CPM remains about the only system for which lots of
USEFUL public domain software is available... People with other
systems pay for inferior products. Many people with CP/M will
pay for a product rather than use an equivalent Public domain
program... Why?
Do they really get an inferior product? I no longer think so
(although this problem worried me for a long while). I used to and
still do think that the current situation vis. a. vis. the state of
commercial software is going to bring its general quality TO US
down. However the "normal" computer user likes what he gets, because
it is (relatively) easy to use, and almost does what he wants. Just
because WE know it's easy to make it right doesn't help him. He's
still better off with an inferior product than none at all.
There is a problem with this: He gets used to an inferior product
and cannot trivially update. That problem probably won't get solved
until a 2060 costs $.59 and has a 96-pin package. C'est la vie.
Even the business CPM user doesn't want free software because, by
paying for software, he's basically buying insurance. If the
software breaks, he has a better chance of finding the author and
getting it fixed. Also, he has a better chance of getting a working
piece of code in the first place.
It IS a problem for us because, as computer scientists (or whatever)
used to state-of-the-art technology, we're continually frustrated by
the shittyness of most commercial software.
The feature of all this, on the other hand, is that pre-packaged
computers, however bad, place the concept of available computation
in the public eye. Children will grow up being comfortable with
computers, at a level not far below where most of us probably are.
They will be able to think of a computer as a flexible tool. It's
too late for the parents.
The question is, I guess: Is the current proliferation of many
basically incompatible micro-computers going to hurt or help the
WorldNet concept?
Well, I don't think anything will happen until the current batch of
12-year-olds hit around 22 or so. So another 10 years. By that time,
we'll have reasonable home computers with which to play anyway.
As for us using CPM, well, there seems to be a pretty big batch of
public domain software available to us now, even with the small
number of us there is. If we continue at this rate (which we won't
-- there'll be more, just wait) then we'll still be well off. We
have compilers and utilities and games .... and in general, better
toys than the "real world." Perhaps I sound elitist, but I think
that it's better for everyone that they lose the way they do. That
way, personal (not micro) computers don't get a bad reputation in
the "marketplace," and are still around.
.....Is it getting better or worse ?
In a sense, it's getting worse. There is less free software per
microcomputer user, and the public sense of what a microcomputer is
is, in our minds, warped. However, there IS a lot of software there.
And it's getting better in that there are more incentives for
businesses to develop new products, and by the time hardware
technology gets to the point that the "average" user will accept the
programs we want, he'll also be ready to accept the KIND of services
we want.
Be patient, Bill. We'll win in the end.
------------------------------
Date: 30 Nov 82 16:10:18-EST (Tue)
From: Gene Spafford <spaf.gatech@UDel-Relay>
Subject: CrossTalk
William Westfield made a statement in Vol. 5 #108 about CrossTalk
only working on IBM Pc's -- that is an error. Les Freed, the author
of CrossTalk, is a friend of mine and I am all too aware of how many
different systems it runs on (about 30 now). One of Les' biggest
headaches is maintaining all those different versions of the same
program so that they are compatible. The user interface is
basically the same, and any two systems running CrossTalk can
communicate with each other without having to establish a new
protocol each time. It is a very nice program and runs on lots of
system with minimal setup --- that's one reason why it has become
such a big-selling piece of software. That's also why Les curses a
lot every time a new system is released. He likes the business but
isn't too fond of the adaption.
------------------------------
Date: 28 Dec 1982 0706-PST
From: Robert Maas <REM at SU-AI>
Subject: What services should WorldNet provide to users?
With the NCP --> TCP switchover coming soon, now seems like a good
time to ask you all what kinds of services a WorldNet should have.
The basic services that always come to mind are:
Electronic mail, including not just person-to-person messages/memos
but mailing lists and electronic magazines. This service could be
implemented via direct link (direct dial, local-area-net, or direct
satellite rebroadcast), via store and forward, or via indirect
end-to-end link such as packet switching.
File transfer, similarly.
Remote virtual terminal (TELNET), for running programs such as games
or information retrieval remotely and interactively. Except for
local service which could be done by direct dial or local-area-net
(and in some cases WATS lines), this would probably be done mostly
by indirect link (packet switching etc.).
The question I'm asking is what other types of services do we want?
They could be implemented either on top of virtual circuits (for
interactive services) or on top of electronic mail (for
non-interactive services, you send a query and a few minutes or
hours later you get a reply). Electronic mail would be preferred
because direct-dial would be cost-effective immediately whereas
virtual circuits would have to wait until the service bureau gets
installed on a large network such as TYMNET or TELENET before many
non-local users would be able to afford using it. But don't dismiss
a service because you think the communications requirements would
make it not cost effective. I'm looking for pipedreams at this time.
All our wishes for genuine user services that are implemented either
directly via the network or by cooperating programs on workstations
that can occasionally send each other messages.
Here are some ideas of my own: Consumer information exchange whereby
consumers can exchange their experiences with various products and
submit rebuttals to earlier reports; Worldwide gamemaster where
players of Chess, Go, D&D, etc. can locate opponents for games at
the same level of skill at any time of day or night and then conduct
games over the net; Catalogs of musical tunes with recognizer
software so somebody with a tune running thru hir mind can ask the
computer to "name that tune"; Inventory of second-hand merchandise,
with bidding on price, so that people who were about to throw away
something no longer wanted can sell it conveniently instead without
having to spend a day at a flea market or hold a "garage sale";
Computerized-conferencing (including debate) on any random subject,
including a "computer dating" system to set up discussion groups in
the first place; A new-idea consideration network where anyone with
an apparently good idea can pass it around for criticism (it may
have flaws, or may have been thought of before, or it may actually
be a brilliant new idea).
So anyway, let's have all your ideas, all several-hundred-odd
members, huh? Send quick stuff that comes to your mind immediately,
before the NCP --> TCP switchover. Save the rest for whenever TCP
comes up on our favorite hosts in 1983. (I.e. either get it to me
before Dec 31, or you'll have to wait a while before we're back in
communication.)
I'd like to collect the best of the ideas that are sent to me,
organize them a little, and forward the resultant listing to
HUMAN-NETS when it is back in service next year.
FROM:37'28N122'08W415-323-0720, about 3 miles from Stanford
------------------------------
Date: 21 Dec 82 13:51:12-EST (Tue)
From: David Axler <axler.upenn@UDel-Relay>
Subject: Getting Management Involved w/Word Processors
One of the more inventive notions used recently to get
management more directly involved w/word processing is the design of
terminals that don't look like terminals. A few months back, I met
someone whose brother is now working for a small Boston firm (don't
recall which, alas) that's designing a new mini-terminal, about the
size of a cigar box, with useful semi-intelligent capabilities like
remembering phone numbers of the machines you use, etc. The box
plugs directly into your mini-phone jack, so you don't need a modem.
The friend had brought one of these gadgets along to play with,
which I did. When I complained that the small size eliminated easy
typing, I was told that this was actually intentional -- it was felt
that managerial types tend to assume that anything that looks too
much like a typewriter (or at least has a key- board that looks like
a typewriter keyboard) in matters like key size and overall shape
should be given to their secretaries, and not used by important
individuals like themselves. Interesting notion....
Dave Axler (axler.upenn @ udel-relay)
------------------------------
Date: 21 December 1982 08:51-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Computers and Weaving (yes, really!)
Gee, how long has it been since the Jacquard Loom predated the
Hollerith punchcard? It's about time somebody uses a computer to
emulate the result of the loom in order to debug loom programs!
Congratulations to whoever finally did it!
Next step, write a program to go the other way, given desired
pattern, compute whether it's possible to loom it and if so the best
way to do it (the one with the fewest complexities together with
strongest most interlocking structure).
------------------------------
Date: 21 Dec 1982 1048-MST
From: Walt <Haas at UTAH-20>
Subject: Re: Computers and Weaving (yes, really!)
La plus ca change, la plus c'est le meme chose. The Jacquard loom
was supposedly one of the things that inspired Babbage's work.
------------------------------
Date: 21 Dec 1982 1116-PST
From: Pierre MacKay <MACKAY at WASHINGTON>
Subject: automated weaving patterns
I suspect that the old punched card of the Jacquard system is still
the commonest way of transferring a pattern to the actual fabric.
(This is usually given as the lineal ancestor of the Hollerith
punched card.) The last few places I have happened to
visit--entirely by accident, it is not my thing at all-- had the
same old clatter of punched cards running in 1982 as might have been
seen in 1882. Since you can't drive a spun fiber faster than a
certain maximum, there may be no very good reason to change from
punched cards (metal cards in this case) to newer technology. I
admit that a floppy disk would be quieter, however. The cards make
an awful racket.
Pierre MacKay
------------------------------
Date: 22 Dec 82 3:19:40-EST (Wed)
From: Ron Natalie <ron@BRL>
Subject: Loomings...
History fans will also note that the Punched Cards used to control
the Jacquard loom predate Hollerith by a bit.
-Ron
------------------------------
Date: 25 Dec 1982 1936-PST
From: GRANGER.RS at UCI-20A
Subject: Weaving
I'll bet some of you don't know the derivation of the word "system:"
it comes from the greek "syn-" (together with) and "histemai" (to
weave!). From this bit of etymology I conclude that weavers were
the first true systems people -- our primordial ancestors.
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************